Support NeoGAF

[LoganNotABoganYouKnowIt!!]

single player vr games could be too immersive! oh dear! it increases opportunities to be insular, following a trend beginning with books -> television -> smartphones. not that any of those can't be overcome. and how about just health concerns! we aren't moving as if it's an actual reality yet. laziness could lead to preferring to just sit with a headset on over socializing.

but the day will come when we will run to escape dinosaurs and flap our hands like hummingbirds to fly. and you can bet that day will be a day to remember, what with all of our friends there along side us represented in hummingbird suits. they'll be experiences to cherish, much like scaling a mountain with hiking buddies, or wild river rafting with buddies who would rather do that.

or, you can just remember yourself what's important and not succumb to the laziness. other people can have a bad life. well, that's not what it's really about. it is about helping other people. what will we do? i don't know. all i know is, i'm scared. tell your friends you love them.

 

[Denton]

The MMORPG VR that he actually says is bad news (and not VR in general!!) has zero interest from me.

I want VR for singleplayer experiences. I want VR for exploration of virtual worlds. For piloting space ships or race cars.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I kind of agree of him. I'm not so convinced the VR future is going to be the Tron-esque fantasy that the movies promised us - I think application will likely go far beyond that - but as a game developer, I'm not sure Valve is going to be creating things in that field of VR. They'll be the ones at least encouraging the meaty games that'll just eat your time when you can truly lose yourself in them; absolutely the more anti-social aspect of the VR spectrum. And that's not really that interesting in the long-term. At some point, when it's the standard, it's you probably getting the same game except now you can't see or hear anything around you.

That said, I think there's no way to really stop that from happening - there was never any way of it - so he could have just stayed at Valve and tried to make their VR experiences more inclusive. Perhaps Valve isn't actually built that way, I don't know.

 

[Zaptruder]

Come on man the whole point of VR is that its so immersive that it makes you feel like youre in another world. It stands to reason that will also result in separating you from the real world, more so than other forms of entertainment. No way around it really.. whether it will actually be an 'issue' who knows..

It's more immersive... in the way going from a 3DS screen to a 34" 4k monitor is more immersive.

You're not trapped in a virtual world. You're not jacked into the matrix in the literal sense. Your body and much of your sensory capacity is still there. You can still pause and take off the headset. It's not even necessary to be plugged into a pair of headphones to use VR.

It's about as anti-social as having your desktop computer setup with your back facing the door. That's the truth of it. We haven't been freakin' out about that... and we don't pretend that those people are inaccessible. So it boggles the mind of many of us here rightly that some people are pretending that's the case.

 

[Seanspeed]

The guy also says he dislikes online gaming in general. He sounds like he simply doesn't like the idea of a 'connected' world when it comes to gaming and digital experiences. Which is fine, its his opinion, but I think that's a very outdated way of seeing all this. If some people have a hard time balancing an 'outside' social life with their gaming/home habits, then who is really at fault?

We cant just stop moving forward because some people will have a hard time handling it in a healthy manner. From this guy's perspective, he'd have put a stop to online gaming, too.

 

[tengiants]

I believe there will be some addicts but I do believe that due to the polarizing nature of the idea of escaping reality, there will be a large invisible hand in play in the VR market that will prevent society from going too crazy with it. Thankfully.

I do agree with him overall. I'm on the side of being open to the technology for productivity reasons, that I think an advanced AR solution would be just as good for.

 

[benny_a]

In your own statement - the single player with 5.1 is a better immersive experience than MP - but you're more accessible nonetheless (can pause, can hear people outside of the game). In VR, it's within the realms of possibility (at some future point) to have camera pass through that allows you to see and interact with the outside world with the headset on, as well as audio passthrough and automatic external party detection (via kinect style tech that can recognize the presence of people). And future VR tech will be more immersive than current devkit technology.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was looking at it from the external accessibility perspective. For immersion and I think the PC setup trumps the TV setup because of the headphones and viewing distance. Just as VR will trump either.

 

[iceatcs]

Solutions are already in the works. Samsung's VR headset will have a 'see through' button to display real life when needed:

Deffo using via smartphone camera, not real see through .

 

[Fnord]

I don't understand how playing a VR game is any less social than playing a game in front of a monitor or TV.

This. 99.9% of my gaming is a solo, "anti-social (not sure that's the appropriate term, actually)" experience. Mostly just me either on the couch or in the bed playing a single player game, while tuning just about everything around me out. I can't see how strapping a headset on will be any less social than what I'm doing now. Just much more immersive.

 

[Durante]

They're definitely less anti-social than VR. I can have a conversation while I read. With VR, audio is important for immersion. (which is the entire point of VR)

As an avid reader, I'd argue you're not really reading if you can have a conversation at the same time. Or maybe I'm just bad at multitasking (or good at immersion).

And, for what it's worth, I've talked with people while using the DK1, and I've had people using it talk with me.

 

[iceatcs]

As an avid reader, I'd argue you're not really reading if you can have a conversation at the same time. Or maybe I'm just bad at multitasking (or good at immersion).

And, for what it's worth, I've talked with people while using the DK1, and I've had people using it talk with me.

Share the experience at the same time from one thing. book no problem, VR will be difficult. But of course you will find some new excuse lol.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I will say that generally I do like to talk to people when I've used the Oculus so far, but that's more of a "you assholes better not have walked off without me" when at a con.

Obviously having headphones on would fuck that up, but I guess speakers are an option?

 

[wrowa]

As an avid reader, I'd argue you're not really reading if you can have a conversation at the same time. Or maybe I'm just bad at multitasking (or good at immersion).

And, for what it's worth, I've talked with people while using the DK1, and I've had people using it talk with me.

You can still be spoken too, though. You might not like it, since it interrupts your reading, but it's still possible. You can still see your surroundings too. In the classic use of VR (that without using AR type of stuff), you'd be completely isolated from the people around you. They can speak to you, but you might not hear them (and from my experience with the Oculus getting immersed so much that you don't pay attention to sounds outside of the game happens rather quickly) and while you're playing, you won't even see whether or not other people are next to you. That's definitely a new kind of isolation.

 

[Fnord]

As an avid reader, I'd argue you're not really reading if you can have a conversation at the same time. Or maybe I'm just bad at multitasking (or good at immersion).

And, for what it's worth, I've talked with people while using the DK1, and I've had people using it talk with me.

Basically, all humans are bad at multitasking.

http://phys.org/news170349575.html

 

[Man]

I predict most deaths caused by VR will not be by hermit activities like not eating, showering etc but rather by terrible friends sneaking up on un-suspecting VR enthusiasts enjoying pastimes like The Forest, Until Dawn, Amnesia etc.

Pass-through camera video feed (based on movement detection) can't come soon enough.

 

[LoganNotABoganYouKnowIt!!]

This. 99.9% of my gaming is a solo, "anti-social (not sure that's the appropriate term, actually)" experience. Mostly just me either on the couch or in the bed playing a single player game, while tuning just about everything around me out. I can't see how strapping a headset on will be any less social than what I'm doing now. Just much more immersive.

if a single-player VR game presents you with the ultimate world you never want to leave, that could be bad.

 

[tengiants]

This. 99.9% of my gaming is a solo, "anti-social (not sure that's the appropriate term, actually)" experience. Mostly just me either on the couch or in the bed playing a single player game, while tuning just about everything around me out. I can't see how strapping a headset on will be any less social than what I'm doing now. Just much more immersive.

That works for you sure. 90% of my gaming is social. I grew up with the whole family passing the controller watching the same TV and playing games in arcades. I now pretty much just play co-op with my wife, or we pass the controller playing when playing single player games. I sometimes play Starcraft. Different strokes.

 

[Lowmelody]

Also saying 'you're cut off from those around you in VR! Thats final!' isn't made true because one lacks the imagination and/or technical knowledge to consider solutions to the problem.

Our fleshy eyes and ears are not some magical boons beyond the replication and surpassing of technical analogs. Normally it would seem too trivial of a thing to mention but the denial of such a concept is the only thing I can fathom that would to lead to such fatal finality in regards to this emerging tech.

 

[Kreunt]

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of first person perspective anyway but am still eager to see the new experiences possible with VR.

VR is great for more than just first person games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftJUrhmemLY

 

[enzo_gt]

How is it greater social friction? How is it any different than what we already have? If I am playing an MMO on my PC with headphones on, it is really no different than VR. So why is VR bad news? Why is it more anti-social?
And most of his 'examples' weren't about social any way. Missing the oven timer is not social friction.

It's greater social friction than your average gaming experience, which is not necessarily MMOs with your gaming headphones on. In the context of VR as the future of gaming, making every experience like that one, making it so that your roommate can't just call you from across the house or that person at the bus stop isn't afraid to approach you because your headphones are in, is moving towards an experience that must be engaged and disengaged. Furthermore, VR being such a big game changed has the potential to begin discouraging development of alternative experiences, and encourage ones that take full advantage of that isolated, engaged experience. This is something that isn't a problem with a TV and speakers. "Sometimes I want to just get immersed in this game and fuck the real world" isn't a good argument for a direction the industry as a whole should go, because on the flipside "sometimes I just want to chill out and play something while still be able to converse with someone in the room or have a conversation with my buddy in the room."

My problem with the general counter-argument is where VR proponents sell it as the "future of gaming", but are quick to brush off aspects of gaming experiences that do not conform to whatever necessary level of immersion or type of interaction that is best suited to the platform. Sometimes this is done by empty statements saying those other experiences will exist in some form or another, while in the same breath acknowledging how deep VR has to penetrate to become a mainstay or standardized and how that may compromise development of other experiences. Other times it's done by claiming others are narrow minded if they are doubtful of VR, while being selectively ignorant of the impact it would have on games or game genres that can not or won't really benefit from the medium in the case that it does become a dominant platform in an industry with development costs rising and rising. It's not just a threat to local multiplayer, it's can be a detriment to how to people interact with games in general if it really does reach the level some want it to. In which case, that is actually a narrow minded view, that games should conform and bend to this sort of gaming experience as opposed to diversity.

I should be very clear (even though I already reiterated it and it's obvious) that this is all under the assumption that VR becomes a dominant platform and, how some say, the future of gaming, and not in the case where VR is a limited-scope, specialty platform like Kinect. That I have no problem with, because it does not bear as much weight on the development of non-VR experiences, and I feel needs to happen because in that case there is a net gain for gaming.

 

[BuggeryBugz]

He doesn't like VR and he quit. Not everybody has to like it. I'm sure a lot won't.

 

[Messofanego]

This has been a worry with technology since the phone was invented. As with every endeavour, employ some moderation.

 

[ieptbarakat]

The endpoint of VR, on the other hand - all engineering
practicalities of first aiming for a seemingly easier goal aside - seems to be
fundamentally anti-social, completing the sad trajectory of entertainment moving
further and further away from shared social experiences.

Good. If I wanted to be social I'd play a multiplayer game. AR is limiting and is always going to be based on your current physical reality and limitations, VR is essentially limitless and could even give you experiences that'd normally be humanly impossible, if the controls are there one day.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

John Carmack is smarter than this guy and he likes VR, so... whatever, dude!

In all seriousness he seems like a glass half empty sort of guy. There are a lot of people out there who will benefit greatly from VR. Many for instance may be able to have experiences most of us have and take for granted. As the tech evolves, people are going to devise some really incredible uses for it.

 

[SkeptiMism]

It amazes me how people cannot work out how having a VR set strapped to your head is inherently anti social. '' Bu bu but TVs and books are anti social too'' No, they're not, and to.say the are is to misappropriate the term.

If I'm reading a book, and my flatmate asks me to give him a hand drying the dishes, I can put my book down and go help. If I'm playing videogames on a TV, and he needs some help pulling dinner out of the oven, I can pause it and go help in an instant. Those activities may be solitary, but they are not anti-social. VR, however, is. If the door knocks while I'm playing games in VR, I would be clueless. My head would be strapped to two monitors, my ears to a set of headphones. I am completely cut off from external communication, unless someone actually grabs me. Door buzzer rings, nothing I can do. Flat mate asks for help, nothing I can do. Oven timer goes off, nothing I can do. Washing needs to.be hung to dry, nothing I can do.

It is an inherently more anti.social form of entertainment, and no amount of 'online communities' will change that. Facebook is an online community, but we still call people who use it 24/7 and let their pets go.hungry anti.social bastards.

Do you even realize that doesn't make any sense? Really no offence, but it comes off as an angry old man just spouting his nonsense that he hasn't thought about at all but goes with a kneejerk reaction.

If I'm playing in VR, and my wife asks me to help her pull dinner out of oven, I can put down the head set and instantly help her. If I'm playing in VR and my wife asks her to help her dry the dishes, I can put down the head set and help her.

Do you ever use a headset for audio when you're playing games? Can you hear the door ringing or knocking? Can you hear if someone says something close to you. Do you not hear the oven timer go off? If you don't, do you just let the oven be forever and let your house burn while you play until you see the fire? Do you just let your pets be without food until the come to moan for food right next you?

With your facebook example you just prove yourself wrong too. The people who get addicted to things can be anti social in real life with a TV or a normal PC monitor too.

Certainly, there is a lot of room for skepticism about VR and the potential furure it creates, but come on think it through.

Playing in front of a monitor means you are occassionally totally immersed into the game. Playing VR means you completely shut off RL.

I guess healthy people can limit themselves, but some people are going to stay on VR for too long.

You are not completely shut off. Have you ever used head phones?
Besides, the thing can be taken off easily. I don't know why this seems to come off as such a shock for some people.

 

[Dinda]

John Carmack is smarter than this guy and he likes VR, so... whatever, dude!

In all seriousness he seems like a glass half empty sort of guy. There are a lot of people out there who will benefit greatly from VR. Many for instance may be able to have experiences most of us have and take for granted. As the tech evolves, people are going to devise some really incredible uses for it.

Interestingly enough "this guy" is one of the not even 100 people that John Carmack follows on Twitter.

 

[Ansatz]

How is it greater social friction? How is it any different than what we already have? If I am playing an MMO on my PC with headphones on, it is really no different than VR. So why is VR bad news? Why is it more anti-social?
And most of his 'examples' weren't about social any way. Missing the oven timer is not social friction.

VR isn't worse than already existing examples, it's that this is yet another thing that will take resources and absorb consumer time/money, meaning even less room for more social forms of gaming in the future.

You're right the situtation you're describing isn't much different but there are single player games that are actually more enjoyable when there are people around to interact with. For example do you think playing Goat simulator alone is equally fun as with friends? Do you prefer to watch comedies alone? Guitar Hero, platformers and many more are more fun in a group even if it's only 1 person playing.

Local multiplayer is by far the best form of gaming, VR is another nail in its coffin. But if that's what people demand, so be it. I have a gazillion multiplayer Nintendo games to last me forever anyway.

 

[CzarTim]

As someone who is disabled, a lot of his complaints are exactly why I look forward to getting into VR. It will allow me to experience things I would normally never get to experience.

 

[ChipotIe]

I gotta say this alleviates some of my concern about VR. I've seen these attempts in the past before in the early to mid 90s and unlike then It seems like VR is a real possibility afterall!

 

[dark10x]

I don't even understand the question.

It's absolutely self-evidence that having a VR interface strapped to your face with binaural headphones while you sit down in your own world that you are less accessible to others around you than if you are sitting on the couch where others can see what you are doing and if they want your attention you just turn your head slightly.

My question is, in what sort of environment are you playing games where you have a steam of people around you? If no one is around then there's no real difference between vr or tv gaming.

 

[benny_a]

My question is, in what sort of environment are you playing games where you have a steam of people around you? If no one is around then there's no real difference between vr or tv gaming.

Why does it need to be a steam of people? Can't it just be a single spouse?

 

[JNT]

It seems to me that the developers behind a technology more than anyone should be aware that the true application of the technology has yet to be discovered, yet Giesen seems to be quick to make the most superficial of doomsday arguments that anyone can make, and fail to see the possibilities behind his technology.

First of all, I think Giesen is way off base with his argument that VR is less social than sitting in front of a monitor. In fact, I believe that the dream of a true virtual reality is fundamentally anchored to a wish to reach out to people beyond our immediate surroundings. With VR we can one day not just talk to someone or see someone, but have non-verbal, meaningful interaction with them that would not have been possible short of physical presence.

The arguments that Giesen make about information-gathering by third parties rings more like a valid concern in my ears. However, this is not an issue with VR. It is a legislative issue that is so far reaching that it extends into the field of VR.

Bottom line is, there will always be abusers of technology, be it the people that use it as a form of 24/7 escapism or as a means of mapping people's lives. Giesen's arguments almost sound as if they build up to a condemnation of all technologies that can be abused. Just imagine if that same line of reasoning had been applied to the field of medicine.

 

[Lowmelody]

Before televisions started to put lead in their screens there was large amounts of left over neutrons that would beam out of the set as Xrays. Many here it would seem would have been prepared to simply write off TV's because they are radioactive rather than, you know, leverage available tech and figure out a solution.

Pass through mic and video. That;s it. The mic can auto detect when a person speaks to you and suspend the game, turn on the video feed from cameras on the front. Someone talks to you while roaming around VR world, then turn your head and speak to them normally. Anti social problem solved, at least in the same capacity that a normal single player video or movie is 'anti social'.

If people don't want to wear tech, think it looks superficially silly or have something against consumption of current media in a solitary manner in general, that is one thing. But to assert that there are and will always be immediate social isolation while wearing a VR headset is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Axass]

My question is, in what sort of environment are you playing games where you have a steam of people around you? If no one is around then there's no real difference between vr or tv gaming.

Not true. You can still hear your phone ring, see what's outside the window, hear people from other rooms, have your cat sleep on your lap... with VR not so much, you're isolated.

Besides I don't really like to play by myself anymore, I love to have my girlfriend near me even when I do single player.

What I mean, and I already stated this in the Miyamoto thread, is that VR is really an overwhelming experience, I'm very hyped by it, can't wait to try it out, but I fear the consequences of misuse.

 

[dark10x]

Why does it need to be a steam of people? Can't it just be a single spouse?

Have you tried it?

It's not as isolating as you seem to think. You are still very much aware of the world around you. I feel like you haven't actually experienced it. It's not that different than playing on a tv in terms of awareness.

If your spouse needs your attention it's not going to be an issue.

Besides I don't really like to play by myself anymore, I love to have my girlfriend near me even when I do single player.

My wife hates most of what I play anyways so I usually play on my own when I have free time on my own. If you like to play with some someone else around then I guess it's not for you.

 

[SkeptiMism]

VR isn't worse than already existing examples, it's that this is yet another thing that will take resources and absorb consumer time/money, meaning even less room for more social forms of gaming in the future.

You're right the situtation you're describing isn't much different but there are single player games that are actually more enjoyable when there are people around to interact with. For example do you think playing Goat simulator alone is equally fun as with friends? Do you prefer to watch comedies alone? Guitar Hero, platformers and many more are more fun in a group even if it's only 1 person playing.

Local multiplayer is by far the best form of gaming, VR is another nail in its coffin. But if that's what people demand, so be it. I have a gazillion multiplayer Nintendo games to last me forever anyway.

I can see your worry, but I am quite convinced there can and will be good local multiplayer experiences with VR. Doesn't have to be for multiple headsets for it either, but asymmetric games could work fine.

 

[benny_a]

It's not as isolating as you seem to think. You are still very much aware of the world around you. I feel like you haven't actually experienced it. It's not that different than playing on a tv in terms of awareness.

Is your argument that it's actually less immersive and the external accessibility is actually better compared to my PC example?

 

[dark10x]

VR isn't worse than already existing examples, it's that this is yet another thing that will take resources and absorb consumer time/money, meaning even less room for more social forms of gaming in the future.

You're right the situtation you're describing isn't much different but there are single player games that are actually more enjoyable when there are people around to interact with. For example do you think playing Goat simulator alone is equally fun as with friends? Do you prefer to watch comedies alone? Guitar Hero, platformers and many more are more fun in a group even if it's only 1 person playing.

Local multiplayer is by far the best form of gaming, VR is another nail in its coffin. But if that's what people demand, so be it. I have a gazillion multiplayer Nintendo games to last me forever anyway.

Man, I do love that kind of stuff and it really hurts that I can no longer enjoy anything like that. I used to engage in that kind of thing all the time but since moving to France I don't have a single friend that enjoys playing games. Depressing.

Is your argument that it's actually less immersive and the external accessibility is actually better compared to my PC example?

My argument is that you are NOT cut off from the world around you. If someone needs your attention it is not a problem. You will know.

You seem to believe that it totally cuts you off from the world and that's just not the case. I kind of wish it was but it's not. It's pretty immersive but not to the point where you're no longer aware of your surroundings.

It almost sounds like external accessibility is the most important thing to you. It makes you a bit less accessible but not to the degree that you seem to think.

 

[benny_a]

You seem to believe that it totally cuts you off from the world and that's just not the case. I kind of wish it was but it's not. It's pretty immersive but not to the point where you're no longer aware of your surroundings.

No, I don't believe that.

As I said and have repeated several times I believe you are less approachable while wearing a VR headset, just like you are less approachable when wearing headphones.

My life experiences have shaped my thinking that I'm more accessible to my family when I play on the TV with surround sound than if I play in my office with headphones. I don't see how on that scale VR is not a stronger version of the latter.

It almost sounds like external accessibility is the most important thing to you. It makes you a bit less accessible but not to the degree that you seem to think.

I also don't think that's the most important thing. It's a factor.

 

[Seanspeed]

Deffo using via smartphone camera, not real see through .

And? The point is - the ability to 'switch to reality' is not only possible, but already happening.

I gotta say this alleviates some of my concern about VR. I've seen these attempts in the past before in the early to mid 90s and unlike then It seems like VR is a real possibility afterall!

Yup. Guy doesn't even want the tech, but only because it actually is that good and thinks it will be that pervasive.

 

[James Coote]

Just to flesh out the argument against VR; realistically, only core gamers are going to ever have and use one of these things in their home. To put this in context, we're seeing PS4 being wildly successful by appealing just to core gamers, whereas more casual-leaning Wii U is floundering. X1 has ditched the Kinect, on which many of the 360's family friendly offerings were based. At the same time, PC sales are going off a cliff. Only businesses and core gamers are buying PC's, since everyone else can do all the same stuff more conveniently with a tablet.

It's always been the problem that the same people playing games are making them, and that naturally leads to games being creatively inbred. Now, outside of mobile, there is no commercial incentive either anymore, for developers to make games to anyone other than the core audience. This has always been the case in indie games, and is the reason why there are so many retro games and remakes of classic games or "forgotten genres". It's all rather backward looking and insular.

I've seen/played a whole bunch of VR games now, most recently at Develop conference earlier this week. Unfortunately, most of them aren't particularly original, and have a tendency to display all the traits of having been made by core gamers for core gamers. The logical conclusion from following this trajectory is what the guy in the op is talking about.

In contrast, it's a warm, sunny day outside, and I'm sat here wondering why I'd want to shut myself off from the outside world, versus exploring it with AR. Let's be clear, AR has the same issue as VR: The experiences to make you sit up and listen or send a tingle down your spine are still few and far between. You can understand why it's easy to be cynical about both, but also why someone might feel AR has a slightly better prospect of birthing something truly great.

 

[Seanspeed]

Just to flesh out the argument against VR; realistically, only core gamers are going to ever have and use one of these things in their home. To put this in context, we're seeing PS4 being wildly successful by appealing just to core gamers, whereas more casual-leaning Wii U is floundering. X1 has ditched the Kinect, on which many of the 360's family friendly offerings were based. At the same time, PC sales are going off a cliff. Only businesses and core gamers are buying PC's, since everyone else can do all the same stuff more conveniently with a tablet.

It's always been the problem that the same people playing games are making them, and that naturally leads to games being creatively inbred. Now, outside of mobile, there is no commercial incentive either anymore, for developers to make games to anyone other than the core audience. This has always been the case in indie games, and is the reason why there are so many retro games and remakes of classic games or "forgotten genres". It's all rather backward looking and insular.

I've seen/played a whole bunch of VR games now, most recently at Develop conference earlier this week. Unfortunately, most of them aren't particularly original, and have a tendency to display all the traits of having been made by core gamers for core gamers. The logical conclusion from following this trajectory is what the guy in the op is talking about.

In contrast, it's a warm, sunny day outside, and I'm sat here wondering why I'd want to shut myself off from the outside world, versus exploring it with AR. Let's be clear, AR has the same issue as VR: The experiences to make you sit up and listen or send a tingle down your spine are still few and far between. You can understand why it's easy to be cynical about both, but also why someone might feel AR has a slightly better prospect of birthing something truly great.

You're still working under the assumption that VR is just for gaming or something?

And yes, early prototype VR games are going to be traditionally gamey. There isn't a single VR headset on the market, so its a little premature to start declaring that VR games aren't ever going to be properly innovative, though. The 'VR universe' is in its infancy at the moment.

Hell, 100 years from now and we may look back and think of 2D gaming as the infancy of gaming in general before *real* gaming took off with VR.

 

[dark10x]

No, I don't believe that.

As I said and have repeated several times I believe you are less approachable while wearing a VR headset, just like you are less approachable when wearing headphones.

My life experiences have shaped my thinking that I'm more accessible to my family when I play on the TV with surround sound than if I play in my office with headphones. I don't see how on that scale VR is not a stronger version of the latter.


I also don't think that's the most important thing. It's a factor.

OK, we clearly live in very different worlds so there's no use arguing.

Being less accessible does not make you inaccessible.

When I play games I do so in chunks of time when I'm sure to have minimal interruptions. I have a dedicated room for all of this. I don't bother even playing anything if my son is awake and if my wife needs me while I'm playing something there is no difference to wearing a VR headset or just playing on a TV.

Which hearkens back to my original question; in what sort of area do you play games? Is it in a common room where people regularly need your attention? If so, I could understand the difference. In my case, though, I only game in a dedicated room. People don't just walk through the room passively.

Whether VR is for you obviously hinges upon your own habits and environment but regardless of all that you remain accessible while playing games in VR. You are never fully cut off from the world around you.

 

[syko de4d]

Former Dev sounds a little to important compared to a former contractor. And he doesnt even like online gaming, so no wonder he doesnt like VR gaming.

 

[veloxStrix]

TIL most people on GAF play single player alone. :l

I'm used to always having the GF or friends around when I play games. Courtesy of apartment and roommates. Or at least playing multiplayer.

 

[benny_a]

Whether VR is for you obviously hinges upon your own habits and environment but regardless of all that you remain accessible while playing games in VR. You are never fully cut off from the world around you.

And I only (in one way) answered a question a poster had.

My argument was never that you are fully cut off. Just that VR creates a greater social barrier between the participant and the non-participants.
I still believe that as strongly as I did before, but you are right there is no use arguing about that because you have your life experiences and circumstances and I have mine. If the technology wasn't creating stronger immersion than playing regularly then I don't know what the point was.

Which is where our disagreement stemmed from I suppose as I very rarely find myself in a situation in which there are other people around me while playing a game and I was curious what kind of environment you play games in.

I didn't interpret "Where the heck are you playing games?" as a genuine question. I was in GAF-mode.

 

[dark10x]

And I only (in one way) answered a question a poster had.

My argument was never that you are fully cut off. Just that VR creates a greater social barrier between the participant and the non-participants.

Which is where our disagreement stemmed from I suppose as I very rarely find myself in a situation in which there are other people around me while playing a game and I was curious what kind of environment you play games in.

 

[Canis lupus]

So this guy would think a VR MMORPG which would be a perfect duplicate of reality would be socially isolating.

What?

Wut. Been watching SAO too much? Nerve gear still needs to be invented.

 

[erpg]

This man is me.

I remember when Palmer Luckey made that "why ever meet people in real life?" remark at PAX, and it scared the hell out of me. I've probably mentioned this before but it's like he saw the steak scene in the Matrix and thought 'oh, that's fantastic - I want that experience'. I want to give people that experience.

 

[StoppedInTracks]

To the people missing former Valve's VR dev point and bringing up reading books (LMAO) as an example, this is how "reading books" and "VR" is experienced by the mainstream media and common people:

BOOKS

vs

VR

VR has to overcome a hill that is 1000x taller than the one that, probably, buried Google Glass.

VR *is* the ultimate antisocial technology. But I wouldn't mind playing Demon's Souls with it - it would be the closest to "being" there experience possible.